20 August 2025
The statutory reflection period when purchasing a property
Under Article 7:2 paragraph 2 of the Dutch Civil Code, a consumer-buyer of a property has the right to cancel the purchase within three days of receiving the signed purchase agreement from both parties. This provision is intended to protect buyers from hasty decisions and to give them the opportunity to carry out further investigation. This right cannot be waived to the detriment of the buyer.
The General Extension of Time Limits Act applies to this period. The reflection period begins on the day following the day on which the signed purchase agreement is received. The period is automatically extended so that there are at least two days that are not a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday.
Although this seems straightforward, in practice disputes can still arise about the interpretation and scope of the reflection period. In this blog, I will address some of the issues.
According to the law, only natural persons who are not acting in the course of a business or profession benefit from this additional protection. But what about buyers who are not full-time property investors but do purchase a property as an investment?
Whether a purchase agreement is signed in someone’s own name and with personal details is not decisive; the key question is the purpose of the purchase. In 2023, the Rotterdam District Court held that a buyer who was renting out three other properties at the time of purchase could not rely on the reflection period. The buyer argued that, as a full-time lawyer, she had no time for property development, that she was always assisted by a buying agent and that she could not live off her rental income. This might show she was not constantly engaged in property investment, but it did not make her a consumer-buyer in this case.[1]
That the distinction is a fine one is clear from a 2014 judgment of the Gelderland District Court. The parties disputed the intended use of a holiday home on a holiday park. The buyer claimed he purchased it for private use, while the seller argued the buyer had previously stated it was an investment. The court ruled that it did not matter who was telling the truth. It stressed that consumers also invest, and that it is not unusual for a consumer to buy a holiday home partly as an investment. It was relevant that the buyers were employed as a social worker and a teacher and earned their primary income that way. Even if the property was purchased as an investment, they could still rely on the consumer-buyer reflection period.[2]
The statutory protection applies only to real estate intended for habitation. The decisive factor is whether the seller is obliged, under the agreement, to deliver a residential property. Whether the buyer intends to convert a property into a residence is irrelevant.
When a property has multiple functions, the intended use at the time of conclusion of the purchase agreement determines which purpose prevails. The Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal ruled that in the case of a wine shop with living space above, the commercial use outweighed the residential use. It was relevant that the wine shop had been advertised as retail space on Funda in Business, and that the ground floor, first floor, cellar and barn were used as shop, office and storage space. Since only one floor served as residential space, the buyer could not rely on the reflection period.[3]
[1] District Court Rotterdam, 31 March 2023, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2023:3159, para. 3.1.3.
[2] District Court Gelderland, 30 April 2014, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2014:4294, para. 2.6
[3] Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal, 6 August 2019, ECLI:NL:GHARL:2019:6356, para. 5.4.
In principle, the consumer-buyer can terminate the purchase agreement during the reflection period without giving reasons. Although sellers often argue that this constitutes abuse of rights, such arguments rarely succeed. For example, even a well-informed buyer, assisted by a buying agent and familiar with the housing market, still had the right to withdraw.[4] Similarly, buyers who feared they would not secure financing, but did not provide evidence, could nevertheless rely on Article 7:2 paragraph 2.[5]
[4] District Court Rotterdam, 28 April 2010, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2010:BN0964, para. 7.8.
[5] District Court Arnhem, 26 March 2009, ECLI:NL:RBARN:2009:BI1717, para. 4.6.
Can there be cases of abuse of rights or conflict with reasonableness and fairness? Yes. In one case, buyer and seller had agreed to grant the seller the same termination right as the consumer-buyer. During the reflection period, the seller received (most likely) a higher offer, terminated the agreement and sold the property to a third party. The District Court considered this improper but upheld the termination. The Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal, however, ruled that it was an abuse of rights, meaning the contract had not been terminated and the seller was liable for the contractual penalty.[6] The Supreme Court upheld this ruling.
Because the parties intended to create equal termination rights, the seller was just as entitled as the consumer-buyer to withdraw from an impulsive purchase or sale decision. However, the buyer was not expected to anticipate that the seller would market and sell the property to a third party during the reflection period. Conversely, a consumer-buyer may not buy multiple properties and then use the reflection period to decide which one to keep and cancel the others. This would unfairly harm other potential buyers and the seller.
[6] Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal, 3 March 2020, ECLI:NL:GHARL:2020:1870, paras. 5.3–5.6.
As with any statutory provision, what appears to be a straightforward rule can still raise many legal questions. If you have questions about the reflection period or other terms in your purchase agreement, feel free to contact me or one of the other specialists at GMW lawyers.
